| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2009 08:27:39 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When that potential human is treated as a human being is a gradual accretion during gestation. You only see it as simple because you view it through the lens of your faith. |
So when is a potential human become human? It's not a newborn baby, they cannot thrive without some care and yet it's against the law to kill it. Maybe it's when a child becomes self aware or independent from their parents? |
Tumors have human DNA, do you defend their rights to grow in a person who would like to have them removed? I rather doubt it.
The question is when the rights of that potential human overrides the rights of the mother to do what she wishes with her body. To religious conservatives, the mother loses her right to end a pregnancy either at conception, or at implantation. To most humanists, she looses that right at some point between the third and sixth month. Not because there is some clear line, but the balance of rights between the child and the mother shift to favor the child as the child reaches potential viability. I'm not sure why you can grant no rights to the woman who is pregnant, and does not choose to be pregnant. Do you value the potential life of the zygote so highly, or do you not value the right of the woman to control her own body at all?
Message edited by author 2009-08-03 20:27:54. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:12:44 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Tumors have human DNA, do you defend their rights to grow in a person who would like to have them removed? |
FWIW, in pregnancy a woman's immune system typically responds by increasing the number and proportion of eosinophils, the white bloods cells dedicated to fighting parasites and allergens ... |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 05:42:39 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The question is when the rights of that potential human overrides the rights of the mother to do what she wishes with her body. To religious conservatives, the mother loses her right to end a pregnancy either at conception, or at implantation. To most humanists, she looses that right at some point between the third and sixth month. Not because there is some clear line, but the balance of rights between the child and the mother shift to favor the child as the child reaches potential viability. I'm not sure why you can grant no rights to the woman who is pregnant, and does not choose to be pregnant. Do you value the potential life of the zygote so highly, or do you not value the right of the woman to control her own body at all? |
It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?
One thing that you mentioned, and that always seems to get missed, is the right of the mother to do as she wishes with her body.
Somehow, when I brought this up earlier, it got skewed to my writing off the father as a part of the process, which isn't the case, the mother is the only participant after conception until the child becomes viable.
It's her health, and her risk.
She should retain the right to make the decision that affects her body.
Any argument to the contrary is purely philosophical.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:32:17 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Tumors have human DNA, do you defend their rights to grow in a person who would like to have them removed? I rather doubt it. |
Maybe I took a different sex ed class than you, but we don't reproduced by tumors. Tumors are not human beings.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The question is when the rights of that potential human overrides the rights of the mother to do what she wishes with her body. To religious conservatives, the mother loses her right to end a pregnancy either at conception, or at implantation. To most humanists, she looses that right at some point between the third and sixth month. Not because there is some clear line, but the balance of rights between the child and the mother shift to favor the child as the child reaches potential viability. I'm not sure why you can grant no rights to the woman who is pregnant, and does not choose to be pregnant. Do you value the potential life of the zygote so highly, or do you not value the right of the woman to control her own body at all? |
You keep on mentioning a "potential human viability." I don't understand how something magical happens and the thing in the woman's womb turns into a human. When/how does that happen? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:02:56 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Tumors have human DNA, do you defend their rights to grow in a person who would like to have them removed? I rather doubt it. |
Maybe I took a different sex ed class than you, but we don't reproduced by tumors. Tumors are not human beings.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The question is when the rights of that potential human overrides the rights of the mother to do what she wishes with her body. To religious conservatives, the mother loses her right to end a pregnancy either at conception, or at implantation. To most humanists, she looses that right at some point between the third and sixth month. Not because there is some clear line, but the balance of rights between the child and the mother shift to favor the child as the child reaches potential viability. I'm not sure why you can grant no rights to the woman who is pregnant, and does not choose to be pregnant. Do you value the potential life of the zygote so highly, or do you not value the right of the woman to control her own body at all? |
You keep on mentioning a "potential human viability." I don't understand how something magical happens and the thing in the woman's womb turns into a human. When/how does that happen? |
The viability question is related to whether the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. This time is becoming earlier and earlier in a pregnancy with advances in science. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 11:45:00 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The viability question is related to whether the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. This time is becoming earlier and earlier in a pregnancy with advances in science. |
Advances in science are not helping premies survive "on their own" ... it is progressing towards developing an artificial/substitute womb. I don't think you can find a place with a greater degree of medical intervention in a natural process than a neonatal ICU ...
Speaking which, those of you who believe in "letting Nature take its course" -- shouldn't that also include letting underdeveloped premies die, as God apparently intended? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:49:31 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The viability question is related to whether the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. This time is becoming earlier and earlier in a pregnancy with advances in science. |
I'm not certain if you've had children before, but a baby can't survive outside the womb either. They're not like animals that can walk around after birth and feed themselves. They can't even crawl to their mom's breast to drink.
I don't think they're able to survive outside the womb until they can at least crawl.
Does that mean we can kill them up to the point where they can crawl? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:51:46 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Speaking which, those of you who believe in "letting Nature take its course" -- shouldn't that also include letting underdeveloped premies die, as God apparently intended? |
That's already been dealt with in this thread....that's okay, don'tcha know?
That's where I have a problem....we're not supposed to play God and terminate a life, but we can save a non-viable fetus that has been rejected by the womb.
That smacks of a double standard to me.
Personally, I think it should be a decision that's made by the involved parties, up to and including both parents, their doctor, and whatever clergy *might* be important to them, NOT the guv'mint, or anyone outside the relevant circle of participants. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:52:52 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The viability question is related to whether the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. This time is becoming earlier and earlier in a pregnancy with advances in science. |
I'm not certain if you've had children before, but a baby can't survive outside the womb either. They're not like animals that can walk around after birth and feed themselves. They can't even crawl to their mom's breast to drink.
I don't think they're able to survive outside the womb until they can at least crawl.
Does that mean we can kill them up to the point where they can crawl? |
I guess you could take this to a ridiculous level but my meaning was living, breathing on their own. GeneralE made mention of neonatal ICU which is a valid point. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 12:54:04 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The viability question is related to whether the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. This time is becoming earlier and earlier in a pregnancy with advances in science. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm not certain if you've had children before, but a baby can't survive outside the womb either. They're not like animals that can walk around after birth and feed themselves. They can't even crawl to their mom's breast to drink.
I don't think they're able to survive outside the womb until they can at least crawl.
Does that mean we can kill them up to the point where they can crawl? |
Wow! That was a special thing to say!
How about if we spell it out differently.....if you need an incubator, surgery, and/or a respirator, that's pretty much screwing with the course of nature.....it's NOT a viable child. Fortunately, because of these invasive techniques, I have a nephew. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 10:43:52 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm not certain if you've had children before, but a baby can't survive outside the womb either. They're not like animals that can walk around after birth and feed themselves. They can't even crawl to their mom's breast to drink.
I don't think they're able to survive outside the womb until they can at least crawl.
Does that mean we can kill them up to the point where they can crawl? |
Let's clarify a couple of points here. There are two arguments: (i) should abortion be permitted; and (ii) if so, against what limits?
Nullix disputes argument (i), so there is no point trying to engage with him on follow-on argument (ii). Nullix tries to mock the limits as being arbitrary, but there should be no argument: they are arbitrary because once you have accepted that abortion is permissible, there are no more "black and white" moments for decision making.
The limits are arbitrary: they are set by reference to relevant factors using judgment and pragmatism (a key relevant factor in modern thinking is viability - but that's as far as it goes).
In addition to my question on whether abortion might be acceptable before 6 weeks (no real answer so far) I would be interested in knowing Nullix's view on:
(1) For how long should mothers who undergo an illegal abortion go to prison? Should it be the same as for murder (ie life)?
(2) Should every miscarriage be investigated by the police as a potential murder?
(3) Should birth control, which prevents gametes from engaging to form potential humans, also be outlawed?
(3)(A) If NO, what is the difference between destroying a few non-sentient combined cells (eg on day 1 using the morning after pill) and preventing them from having combined?
(3)(B) If YES, for how long should should people exercising birth control be imprisoned?
(4) Are there any exceptions when people should be able to control their procreation?
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 10:44:44.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 03:07:29 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
(1) For how long should mothers who undergo an illegal abortion go to prison? Should it be the same as for murder (ie life)? |
Mothers shouldn't goto jail for this. It's the doctors who preform this illegal act.
Originally posted by Matthew:
(2) Should every miscarriage be investigated by the police as a potential murder? |
Natural miscarriages are deaths by natural causes. Nobody's at fault.
Originally posted by Matthew:
(3) Should birth control, which prevents gametes from engaging to form potential humans, also be outlawed? |
No, Most birth control methods are preventative and these should be fine. It's when the birth control kills that it should be outlawed.
Originally posted by Matthew:
(3)(A) If NO, what is the difference between destroying a few non-sentient combined cells (eg on day 1 using the morning after pill) and preventing them from having combined? |
(Human Sperm) != Human
(Human Egg) != Human
(Human Sperm) + (Human Egg) = Human
Originally posted by Matthew:
(4) Are there any exceptions when people should be able to control their procreation? |
Of course there are, but the methods we use to control our procreation shouldn't kill anyone. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 03:22:28 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Matthew:
(1) For how long should mothers who undergo an illegal abortion go to prison? Should it be the same as for murder (ie life)? |
Mothers shouldn't goto jail for this. It's the doctors who preform this illegal act. |
So you'd only prosecute a hit man, not the person who orders/pays for the murder?
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Matthew:
(2) Should every miscarriage be investigated by the police as a potential murder? |
Natural miscarriages are deaths by natural causes. Nobody's at fault. |
Wouldn't it require an investigation to prove it was a "natural" miscarriage and not self-induced abortion?
Message edited by author 2009-08-05 15:23:08. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 03:41:35 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
(Human Sperm) != Human
(Human Egg) != Human
(Human Sperm) + (Human Egg) = Human
Of course there are, but the methods we use to control our procreation shouldn't kill anyone. |
Using your own formula above, exactly how is this possible?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 05:53:12 PM · #190 |
I'd think that supporting abortion would be a fine short term tactic on the part of conservatives.
If those baby-killing liberals keep eating their own, eventually there won't even be any left to argue with, and the remaining conservative populace with its unfettered brood, obviously superior by merit of it's own survival, should have weeded out the instinct for infanticide.
Right?
I mean, according to their logic, if they let the gays marry, it'll end pregnancy as we know it. Populations will crash! Humanity will die off! I assume that temporarily allowing a form of liberal auto-eugenics would follow a similar trajectory. And don't conservatives already excel at sacrificing the many for the few?
It seems such a perfect fit! |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 06:16:26 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So you'd only prosecute a hit man, not the person who orders/pays for the murder? |
I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know how to handle this one. Pre-1973, the doctors were prosecuted.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Wouldn't it require an investigation to prove it was a "natural" miscarriage and not self-induced abortion? |
I'm going under the assumption that we still live in a state where people are innocent until proven guilty. It's natural unless proven otherwise. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 08:48:41 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Wouldn't it require an investigation to prove it was a "natural" miscarriage and not self-induced abortion? |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm going under the assumption that we still live in a state where people are innocent until proven guilty. It's natural unless proven otherwise. |
And how exactly would you prove it without the investigation?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2009 08:55:55 PM · #193 |
| GOD will sort this out in due time. HE has given you the tools to make the right decision and allows you to make the choice, right or wrong. It's pretty simple really, if you use your head. I hope you make the right choice. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 09:30:39 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
GOD will sort this out in due time. HE has given you the tools to make the right decision and allows you to make the choice, right or wrong. It's pretty simple really, if you use your head. I hope you make the right choice. |
Okay.....
I have some questions. I believe that God has blessed/cursed me with this free will thing, as he has a few others.
I also belive that he created us to be able, over time, to develop and perfect ways of saving lives that previously would not have been possible.
With this ability comes responsibility as well, don't you suppose?
So......is saving the life of a fetus rejected at five months with surgery and a respirator playing God?
What about aborting a fetus that is damaged and has no chance for a normal life free of pain & confusion over and above what we all face?
Like you said above, I was given the tools to make the right choices......so that would make those choices between me and God, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 09:41:15 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I'd think that supporting abortion would be a fine short term tactic on the part of conservatives.
If those baby-killing liberals keep eating their own, eventually there won't even be any left to argue with, and the remaining conservative populace with its unfettered brood, obviously superior by merit of it's own survival, should have weeded out the instinct for infanticide.
Right?
I mean, according to their logic, if they let the gays marry, it'll end pregnancy as we know it. Populations will crash! Humanity will die off! I assume that temporarily allowing a form of liberal auto-eugenics would follow a similar trajectory. And don't conservatives already excel at sacrificing the many for the few?
It seems such a perfect fit! |
The logic is the same if you're straight or gay. How about this one, if you believe being gay is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn and test for the gay gene? Then abort if their unborn was gay.
Sorry, you can't be gay if you're aborted.
edit: Lawyer suggests abortion if a test could prove fetus has "gay gene'
Message edited by author 2009-08-06 11:39:15. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 09:42:50 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Sorry, you can't be gay if you're aborted. |
The mind reels. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 12:00:19 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The logic is the same if you're straight or gay. How about this one, if you believe being gay is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn and test for the gay gene? Then abort if their unborn was gay. |
Oh we can already test for stuff like that. If you believe that being a woman is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn child and test for a 'missing' Y chromosome? Then abort if their unborn was female?
Gotta have baby-dudes to carry on the legacy, you know! And dowries are such a pain to collect! |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 12:02:11 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Nullix:
The logic is the same if you're straight or gay. How about this one, if you believe being gay is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn and test for the gay gene? Then abort if their unborn was gay. |
Oh we can already test for stuff like that. If you believe that being a woman is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn child and test for a 'missing' Y chromosome? Then abort if their unborn was female?
Gotta have baby-dudes to carry on the legacy, you know! And dowries are such a pain to collect! |
This happens in certain cultures all the time. If the technology is available, somebody will use it. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 12:42:15 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Matthew:
(1) For how long should mothers who undergo an illegal abortion go to prison? ... |
Mothers shouldn't goto jail for this. It's the doctors who preform this illegal act. |
What if no doctor was involved? How long? Or is this to be a crime without penalty - in which case why make it a crime?
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Matthew:
(2) Should every miscarriage be investigated by the police as a potential murder? |
Natural miscarriages are deaths by natural causes. Nobody's at fault. |
Since the police usually investigate untimely deaths, and since an abortion is an induced miscarriage, wouldn't you expect them usually to investigate miscarriages?
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Matthew:
(3) what is the difference between destroying a few non-sentient combined cells (eg on day 1 using the morning after pill) and preventing them from having combined [using contraception]? |
(Human Sperm) != Human
(Human Egg) != Human
(Human Sperm) + (Human Egg) = Human |
However, I suspect you wouldn't grieve a few skin cells being scraped from your body and killed. The critical difference seems to me to be that one group of cells has the potential to become a fully grown human and the other does not.
On this assumption, your thinking places heavy emphasis on the potential of the cells - though it ignores the potential of gametes. All this indicates to me that your distinction is also substantially born out of pragmatism rather than some higher morality.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 12:42:53 PM · #200 |
In spite of what Obama previously said about his pay grade, he will make those decisons for us if given the chance with Obama Care. I know this by the company he keeps and the statements they have made.
My answer to your questions is, I don't know.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by David Ey:
GOD will sort this out in due time. HE has given you the tools to make the right decision and allows you to make the choice, right or wrong. It's pretty simple really, if you use your head. I hope you make the right choice. |
Okay.....
I have some questions. I believe that God has blessed/cursed me with this free will thing, as he has a few others.
I also belive that he created us to be able, over time, to develop and perfect ways of saving lives that previously would not have been possible.
With this ability comes responsibility as well, don't you suppose?
So......is saving the life of a fetus rejected at five months with surgery and a respirator playing God?
What about aborting a fetus that is damaged and has no chance for a normal life free of pain & confusion over and above what we all face?
Like you said above, I was given the tools to make the right choices......so that would make those choices between me and God, wouldn't it? |
|
|
